I posted this link to facebook a few days ago. I’m trying to remember the feelingThe department’s own records demonstrate that, as with other types of force, canine officers use dogs out of proportion to the threat posed by the people they encounter, leaving serious puncture wounds to nonviolent offenders, some of them children. Furthermore, in every canine bite incident for which racial information is available, the subject was African American. This disparity, in combination with the decision to deploy canines in circumstances with a seemingly low objective threat, suggests that race may play an impermissible role in officers’ decisions to deploy canines.s. What prompted this?

It was text accompanying an article I shared from The Root, Minnesota Corrections Officers File Lawsuit Claiming All Non-White Officers Were Barred From Guarding Derek Chauvin

It’s so blatant. The distrust in black people. The discrimination and prejudice. I wonder how many get ignored on a regular basis?

Not just police. I mention criminal justice system a lot for a reason.
And I mention other bigotry in the criminal justice system officials occasionally to reinforce the fact that it’s a system broken on multiple dimensions (but not so much as to take from antiracist momentum, the sexism and ableism support the fact of bigotry in our criminal justice system).

I when there is no example present I try to use “criminal justice system” at least half of the time when critisizing the country because that includes the police. The current social focus is racism and if people deny it’s systemic it’s useful to point to multiple bigotries in support of the current example.

I just finished the first episode of Behind the Police, by the creators of the Behind the Bastards podcast and they mention that 100% of police dog bites involved black people in the justice department report in the ferguson missouri police department.

The department’s own records demonstrate that, as with other types of force, canine officers use dogs out of proportion to the threat posed by the people they encounter, leaving serious puncture wounds to nonviolent offenders, some of them children. Furthermore, in every canine bite incident for which racial information is available, the subject was African American. This disparity, in combination with the decision to deploy canines in circumstances with a seemingly low objective threat, suggests that race may play an impermissible role in officers’ decisions to deploy canines.

It’s blatant and we didn’t talk about it as a nation.

The word interrogation has a negative vibe because of things like police behavior, torture, and other legitimate abuses that deserve attention. But I see interrogation as a tool and a solution to our current political problems. There’s too much bullshit and bullshitters aren’t willing to back up said bullshit. Questioning, “grilling”, and other synonyms and euphimisms.

That is one of my primary political behaviors. An unapologetic willingness to interrogate the claims of people making strong, disparaging, and other claims. I want the behavior to be picked up. I want people on every political side to feel the pressure to back their shit up. It takes practice and mistakes will happen but that doesn’t stop me.

My failed country and culture really doesn’t like criticism like interrogation pointed in certain places. Places like ones in-group which switches from party to country depending on context. I don’t accept that natural behavior that feels negative is wrong just because it feels negative. It has a good and bad use like everything else.

The instincts in me smell prey, privilege sensitivity worthy of political pressure.

It’s in the whining about “civility” as if minority groups got that from history. It’s in “I/ authority/celebrity have the right to an opinion” bleating, as if my intrusive questions aren’t also speech. It’s in the claims that being negative won’t change anything, if so why was it used on minorities and why does the sensitive have to police it’s use?

So I took the tool for myself and I’m refusing to stop using it. The tourette syndrome is very much a benefit here. Keep in mind that you don’t want them to simply have an opportunity to air awful views. You want quotes, citations, sources, video time points and quotes, and especially the reasoning and logic between the claims and the sources. They will do work or they will be made to look like unreliable people.

• I interrogate the negative feelings of bigots and their disparaging characterizations and claims. From transphobes to racists if what they say was really real or important they would back their shit up. I don’t even accept that trans people as a set are like the group they were assigned to at birth. If “it’s biology” you can fucking show it and back your fear up.
• I interrogate the rape culture that appears when an accusation is made from the right (Caroline Ford) and the left (Tara Reade).
• I interrogate the claims of forced-birthers, if they really were trying to help someone they’d cooperate.
• I interrogate the claims that mental illness is involved in some act that someone is bothered by such as a mass shooting, or a rape accusation. Those people will show the abstract diagnostic criteria and concrete examples to match.
• I interrogate the claims about the need for civility since they seem unevenly applied. With the election of Trump I don’t really think this country cares about civility.
• I interrogate the idea that this is a good country, or that we’re good people. Good people don’t cover up and make excuses for torture. Good people don’t make concentration camps for migrant children. Good people don’t care about things more than people, failed fellow citizens.
• I interrogate the narratives around the value of the unstable magical token generator, the stock market. An expression of things being more valuable than people, it hurts people not even invested in it.
• I interrogate the support of the military in confronting protestors, such a fellow citizen should be ready with a constitutional justification to avoid being a failed fellow citizen.

And that’s just one form of criticism. Society should get used to it because rather than it being a bad thing, it should be evenly distributed and available for all. Trump and not-Trump both made to show where they got that bullshit from and why anyone should think it’s real.

I’m including this in another post, but I think it’s useful and I’m using it now. It’s rhetoric that I’ve settled on and seems useful.
“A riot is a kind of protest, it’s reciprocal behavior in a culture where there’s a broken social contract relative to the criminal justice system.”

Martin Luther King Jr. is the inspiration. I just like to have more than one way of saying something and I really like the usefulness of “social contract” here.

I am antifa.
It’s not an organization although some antifascists organise. It’s like being an environmentalist, or antibigot, people choose to be that independent of any authority.

So this looks like the natural evolution of the irrational fear of antifa.

The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2020

Oh really Donald? Based on what reasons would you be doing that you enormous fucking ignorant incompetent? What could possibly be making you think that ANTIFASCISTS are a problem?

It noticed that as usual you’ve shown no reason or logic for this Donald. It’s just another wild desperate grasping at something the political right in the usa considers a problem, and never feels like they have to explain.

Fuck that.

Note: I saw PZ doing it and it’s a good idea.

 

Property damage and violence associated with mass events isn’t something this culture actually cares about from what I can see. If that was the case we’d be shutting up the police every time they damaged things while doing their jobs and ignoring them as we obsessed over broken windows and doors.

You care that it’s black people protesting. You care that it’s black people who have hit a limit in what they are willing to take. You’d do the same if it was other non-white groups. You’d do the same with other groups too America. But not with the people who are used to having power.

If we cared about property damage and violence we would be hyperfocused on any damage associated with the people protesting virus related limits on association and ignoring their message. We would have been endlessly focused on the damage done by the Bundy inspired invasion of a national park and ignored their whining about having to pay for public land resource use.

We would be calling every sports-fan related excess that results in property damage and violence a riot.

And I’m sure you could find some people doing the above but it’s not that widespread. It’s when black people protest about getting murdered and some hit understandable limits that we collectively hyperfocus on any nearby violence and conflate it with the protest. Americans are disgusting and nausea inducing people.

Looks like bigoted discrimination to me. Separating out black people as a group to ignore the protests of if there’s any violence happening nearby. It doesn’t even have to be their violence. We’re too racist as a country to make distinctions.

So fucking what if there’s violence and property damage? If I see anyone respond to a protest with an attention shift to violence that’s a cause for me to interrogate the urge. The reasons for protest are about violence, and I consider that attention shift caring about things more than people, or making excuses for primary violence that reasonably trigger rage.

If someone is worried about their life or the lives of their loved ones and you shift to property damage you are showing me what your priorities are. You’re showing me what kind of a person you are. I’ve no reason to think you won’t care about things more than me.

And if you ignore the murder that pushes communities to violent displays that signal they won’t just take such abuse, I think you’d do the same to me. Shut the fuck up and listen to the protestors. Shut the fuck up and fix the racism in our institutions.

Here are some interesting things I should have put into my last post that have to do with language and non-literal language that I believe are useful. These are examples for getting an idea about how we transmit information to one another, and how anatomy is used in language.

*The first is a university news article on a study looking at brain regions activated when hearing metaphors. Hearing metaphors activates sensory brain regions.

It turns out that hearing metaphors activates sensory regions associated with the non-literal parts. A “rough” day activating the texture portion of the somatosensory (skin-sensory) system. If “something smells fishy” presumably I’m activating your olfactory regions. If I could “use a hand” sensory regions associated with the limb in question will presumably be activated.

*Then there’s the idea of “emotional contagion“. Despite the negative implication, this is a neutral term. Contagious yawning is a common example. Movement and/or sound (just hearing a yawn can do) triggers the same behavior in others.

The details are still getting argued. I thought this paper was useful for the general information in the introduction. “Auditory Contagious Yawning Is Highest Between Friends and Family Members: Support to the Emotional Bias Hypothesis“. I also thought they did good mentioning the various explanations and didn’t see an irrational weight placed on evo psych when it came to gender differences. I could easily be wrong though, I am very privileged here, and neurodiverse.

“In Homo sapiens and some non-human primates contagious yawning is higher between strongly than weakly bonded individuals. Up to date, it is still unclear whether this social asymmetry underlies emotional contagion (a basic form of empathy preferentially involving familiar individuals) as predicted by the Emotional Bias Hypothesis (EBH) or is linked to a top-down, selective visual attention bias (with selective attention being preferentially directed toward familiar faces) as predicted by the Attentional Bias Hypothesis (ABH).”

The summary is interesting. “The social bond significantly predicted the occurrence of auditory yawn contagion, which was highest between friends and family members. A gender bias was also observed, with women responding most frequently to others’ yawns and men being responded to most frequently by others. These results confirm that social bond is per se one of the main drivers of the differences in yawn contagion rates between individuals in support of the EBH of yawn contagion.”

I’ll add that it’s more complex than a “man/woman” dichotomy and that socially inspired difference in emotional contagion as it relates to anatomy and politics is worth thinking about in other dimensions that expand from sex and gender to other aspects of human nature. like use of disgust in homophobia and transphobia (and other phobias). The dick sucking insults that are common on the left and right count and I don’t assume that the transphobes I confront are necessarily on the political right (“right” as that’s used in the usa).

I mention this a lot when I argue so I think it’s worth it to create a post about the subject. What is it? What are the examples? How should we communicate about it? Are there other questions we should ask about it?

I’ll pile some things.

Metaphor, analogy, hyperbole…

And I’ll be upfront, the tourette’s syndrome matters, and by extension neurodiversity and non-literal language matters in general. And I’m fine with questions. I’m pretty open about the tourette’s syndrome everywhere else and nothing has changed here.

Often when I argue I act like a non-literalism is a replacement for something else because it’s useful. No matter what the other person says it’s not the thing, it’s a representation. You can always ask the other person to show you what they feel strongly about. In a political context the fact that they can’t back up their words is useful. You can even point it out them, and I often do.

But that’s just arguments and politics, analogy can enhance learning in general. Creative exaggeration like hyperbole isn’t bad because I focus on it like an obstacle in arguments…

The last thing I’ll do is mention some things about me and non-literal language. It’s by no means everything or the best way to put it but it might matter to explain some of how I relate to the subject.

The literal meaning is present in my mind as a kind of priority item. It’s highly salient as professional language puts it. The other person’s use of the non-literal language is there too, it’s just often convenient to simply refuse to respect it in politics. Otherwise I choose what I do with the sensitivity in other situations. The strength of it can make things expressively difficult on occasion.

I’m also sensitive to anatomy in language as related priority item, think about the anatomical nature of many examples of non-literal language. Something “smells fishy”. Having a “rough” day The way the body is used in mockery is another example. It’s part of how at least some non-literal language works, use of the body, senses and more direct experience to convey other things.

I don’t know how related that is to sensitivity to anatomy as we see in current sex and gender issues. I’d put it in the region of the “expression” part of gender expression because of the tourettic action pattern related phenomena. For example palilalia is repition of speech, and pali-lalia relates to echolalia (mirroring of speech) corprolalia (obscene speech) and there’s gesture/movement (-praxia) and writing (-graphia) versions. So whatever is going on with me has to do with the programs the brain runs which connect action with anatomy.

So what is your relationship with non-literal language?

In my broken culture post I scrubbed people’s identities. I have a lot of reasons for doing that and making it about issues was the reason I choose to do it. It’s an intense subject and I think will help.

I was originally going to keep the identities there. But it’s better as a topic before I do anything. At the present I think attaching bigotry to identity is a good thing. But it’s worth thinking about the consequences. Plan for potential reactions. I’m actively thinking about a creative series.

I’m open to criticism. I might not change anything but it’s good to know about concerns involving political shaming.

An explanation of a previous post and a potential series if its interesting.

I’m of the opinion that emotions of any sort are only right or wrong in the application and not as a set. I believe the rhetoric with respect to things like hatred and disgust are inconsistent with what they are and how they work. I’m sympathetic with some of the language given its utility in the service of civil rights advancement. But that doesn’t change the vulnerability associated with ideas that range from incorrect to neglecting other features of human behavior.

What do you do when you feel the hate or disgust? You don’t spread it like a condiment, it becomes attached to your memories when you have an experience. And it is part of how your memories store the experience. You don’t suppress it you learn to control it and decide what responses you attach to the disgust or hate.

It’s motivating instinct. It’s made to be practiced and controlled.

I found this on PZ’s political madness thread. Credit to SC. “One of Trump’s personal valets has tested positive for coronavirus“

And I posted this on facebook.

“HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Eat irony Donald. Not doing enough to protect you? Why it’s like a virus requires a larger social response to effectively deal with or something.
It’s too bad you’re systematically removing people or bullying people in your social interactions who actually know how we should deal with viruses.”

I see the following list as examples of something that comes naturally to us. I’m not judging the category. I don’t grudge people the right to make negative political lables for people. I’m more about the utility of the lable. It’s meaning, usefulness, accuracy, and whatever other features they have. It makes the bigotry stand out too. Tools that are actually harmful to society should

SJW. Cultural marxism. White knight. Virtue signaling. Cuck. Dictionary athiest. Uncle tom. Political correctness. Soy boy. Boomer. Femanazi.

I call them “political pejoratives”. They’re tools. They have a use and meaning. And my way of dealing with them is to take them seriously. A tool is only as valuable as it’s utility.

I’ve seen people claim they are characteristics. Negative feeling characteristics that just can’t help feeling negative. I can respect that in the abstract, I use ignorant and incompetent myself, as well as dictionary athiest, and I have an appreciation for boomer… So I ask them to show me the characteristics so that I can judge for myself.

I’m not going to post definitions or histories for all of these since the ones I see as obstacles can be engaged with despite them. Their worth can be demonstrated by those who believe they have value. And of course this is one person’s experience of these words and other perspectives are important.

I ask to see the “SJW” characteristics, which seem to be something like “illigitimate social justice activism”. Illigitimate by means of a logical problem, or being insincere, or means that undermine goals…and I’ve rarely gotten anyone to give me a definition let alone apply it to the situation. This is functionally an insult.

I similarly have a very hard time getting people to show me the “cultural marxism”, less than 10 times has anyone showed me what it was (articles by people on the right). And not once has anyone shown me the bad thing in specific terms, applied their concept to the situation and specifically show the bad things. This is also functionally an insult.

“White Knight” was coming to the defense of someone for the purposes of getting reward sex, seems to have evolved into “illigitimate defense”, and often doesn’t seem to have a sexist aspect today (aimed at more people, yay society?). But I’m not the group it was intended for so my perspective is limited. Experiences of language don’t go away so it’s better to say it seems me applied more evenly with respect to sex and gender, but definitely hits minority voices more often. I demand to see the illigitimate defense and rarely get anything.

“Virtue signaling” is an absolute mess of a “characterization”. Not only don’t people show me what’s wrong with the signal in question, it’s an appropriated technical term for general human behavior that’s only right or wrong in specific examples. It looks like another claim of insincerity with no effort to show a problem. And conveniently people using the “term” get to virtue signal while acting like everyone else is insincere. This is not only functionally an insult, I can see what they are doing with it when no one actually shows the insincerity. With quotes. I’m pretty sure these are largely bigots who don’t want to be critisized.

“Cuck” was an insult meant to suggest someone was getting treated as subordinate or submissive by a woman. It seems to me to have evolved into a general means to suggest someone, usually a percieved ally or allies, are acting subordinate or submissive on the level of letting someone have sex with your wife and watching. I’ve seen some say Republicans were “cucked” by the Democrats by when they compromised on legislation. This pajorative only seems effective among the people who use it. It’s right-wing in-group shaming by people independently of its existence as a kink. They try to use but most of their out-groups seem to find it confusing or amusing.

“Dictionary athiest” is one I use. To me it’s relevant every time someone brings up the dictionary definition of the word atheist in order to pressure others to stop discussing something in an atheist social space, or to stop talking as if something were connected to atheists as a group (and is often connected to the odd idea of there being no actual atheist community). In my experience it’s often directed at issues like taking harassment, abuse, and bigotry seriously. As far as I’m concerned what we disbelieve doesn’t determine what we believe or talk about, and if something is relevant to an atheist it’s fair game and dictionary atheists are trying to affect politics to their benefit. And most importantly if someone in an atheist community has a problem with bigotry in that community it’s fucking relevant.

“Uncle tom” I have respect for. I don’t use it, it’s not mine. I’m a potential “euromutt”. I think that’s what I put on the census but I’m leaving room for it to be problematic. It belongs to someone else. Here in the united states of america it references a black person who is seen as overly subservient towards white people. One experience of it is one of my family members posting an article that acted like it was outrageous that a black conservative, Ben Carson I believe, was called an uncle tom. Unfortunately I don’t have the article anymore. But I remember that nowhere in the article did the author say why it was wrong that someone used the term. They acted like it was just bad to use it at all and didn’t even defend that. I threatened to pick one of my family’s negative characterizations of fellow christians or republicans and start calling it unacceptable.

“Political correctness” has a history that I don’t know well enough to try to discuss. Today it seems to be a way of disparaging criticism of language use and people who use it don’t really like to get specific about what it is they don’t want critisized. It’s useful to ask what it is they want to be able to say without consequences like criticism. There is usually an implication of the person having opinions related to race, sex, gender or something else. All I can say is some language deserves critisizing and you can’t show me the language or criticism I’m not going assume there’s a problem.

“Soy boy” is part misogyny and part racism used to police social behavior. Conflation of some estrogens with plant estrogens is ignorant political opportunism. And racism is because I believe of “foreignness” and connections to asian stereotypes should be considered as opportunities for people already demonstrating misogyny. Hbomberguy’s amusing treatments of the topic are recommend. That part of society is piles of grifting on grifting. The intersection of bigotry and grifting is a thing worth thinking about.

“Boomer” and lately “boomer remover”. I like it. I think younger generations need a pajorative for elders acting badly on issues relevant to the younger generations. I leave it alone or defend it’s use.

Femanazi. Rush Limbaugh’s label for people critisizing others based on sex and gender issues. I treat it like an insult, and as I write this I if I should tell people using “feminazi” that it’s good that they display their intent to attack instead of constructively engage over an issue? It seems like like a useful characteristic to highlight in a political confrontation.

That’s good for now. Listing them all would be endless because we’re always making new ones. Feel free to add your own examples below.